Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from issues arising from plaintiff Maria Mendoza’s purchase of a home with proceeds of a loan secured by a deed of trust, and the subsequent loss of the home in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained the banks' demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend, rejecting her attempt to void the trustee's sale based on purported defects in the assignment of her deed of trust, irregularities in the substitution of trustees, and flaws in the securitization of her loan. The homeowner contends that not only should she be allowed to remain in her home, but that she is entitled to outright ownership without paying her debt because the banks have "already benefitted from an American taxpayer bailout of unprecedented proportions." In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, and quiet title, the Court of Appeal concluded: (1) plaintiff failed to make a specific factual showing that the foreclosing parties did not have the requisite interest in the property to issue the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed of sale; and (2) in the absence of prejudice, she lacked standing to challenge irregularities in the securitization process. View "Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Humberto Quinones of two counts of possession for sale of heroin, one count of transportation of a controlled substance, and possession by a convicted felon of a firearm, and found he was personally armed with a firearm during the drug offenses, and had two prior strike convictions for two 1981 robberies. In early 2013, defendant filed this petition, alleging his current felonies were not serious or violent. Regarding the arming allegation, he argued that the sentencing judge "did not just strike the punishment; rather, it struck the enhancement allegations completely." Defendant argued the arming allegation was not part of his record of conviction and he was eligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. The State opposed the motion, arguing the arming allegation had been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, and had been stricken for sentencing purposes only, and therefore defendant was disqualified from relief. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant ineligible under the Act because he possessed a firearm during the current offenses, notwithstanding that the sentencing judge struck the arming enhancement at defendant’s 1996 sentencing. Defendant then appealed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that the arming enhancement found by the jury but dismissed for sentencing purposes indeed disqualified defendant for resentencing purposes.View "California v. Quinones" on Justia Law

The two petitions for writ of mandate/prohibition involved in the present proceeding arose from a felony domestic violence case. At issue was whether, in fulfilling its federal constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution was entitled to direct access to peace officer personnel files. Petitioners argued that such access is barred by Penal Code section 832.7(a). Section 832.7(a) provides, in part, that peace officer personnel records are confidential and may be disclosed in a criminal proceeding only pursuant to a motion under Evidence Code section 1043. The court denied the writ petitions to the extent they challenge the respondent superior court's order requiring the SF Police Department to provide the prosecution access to personnel files to allow for identification of any Brady materials in those files. The court concluded that Section 832.7(a) does not create a barrier between the prosecution and the performance of its duty under Brady. The court's construction of Section 832.7(a) makes it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of barring prosecutorial access to officer personnel files for the purpose of identifying Brady materials therein. The court granted the writ petitions to the extent they challenged the respondent superior court's refusal to consider any request for disclosure of Brady materials pursuant to a motion under Section 1043. The court concluded that, prior to disclosure to the defendant of any Brady material identified by the District Attorney, the prosecution must seek an order authorizing such disclosure under Section 1043. View "People v. Super. Ct. (Johnson)" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of sex crimes and declared mentally incompetent to stand trial based on his developmental disability, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his continued placement in the county jail is not proper under Pen. Code 1370.1 and violates his right to due process. The court agreed that petitioner may not be placed in the county jail for the purpose of receiving competency services, and, absent a determination that there is a substantial likelihood that he will recover his competency in the foreseeable future, petitioner's continued confinement violates his right to due process. The court concluded, however, that in light of the clear and unequivocal language in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6510.5, the court rejected the contention that the trial court may order petitioner placed at Porterville Developmental Center if the DDS continues to maintain that he cannot be safely served at Porterville. The trial court may take steps to ensure that the DDS fulfills its statutory obligation to ensure the regional center meets its duty to provide placement options for the treatment of petitioner. Accordingly, the court granted the petition with instructions to the trial court. View "In re Williams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, appealed the trial court's judgment sustaining the demurrer to his second amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, another attorney, on the theory that he was owed a portion of the settlement checks for clients who had originally hired plaintiff and then substituted defendant as counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to the second amended complaint because plaintiff failed to establish the existence, amount, and enforceability of his attorney fees lien in an independent action against the clients. View "Mojtahedi v. Vargas" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from an order terminating her parental rights to her son, contending that the juvenile court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963, did not apply. Mother had the right to appeal the juvenile court's order at the dispositional hearing but she did not do so. She only challenged the juvenile court's failure to provide notice under the ICWA approximately one and a half years later which was after the juvenile court terminated parental rights. Accordingly, the court held that Mother failed to timely appeal the juvenile court's order and affirmed the judgment. View "In re Isaiah W." on Justia Law

Defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence under the provisions of Penal Code section 1170.126, which was enacted by Proposition 36 in 2012. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that defendant was ineligible because his current offense fell under subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iii) of section 667. The court held that the trial court correctly concluded that defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Soto" on Justia Law

Mother challenged a juvenile court order terminating jurisdiction over her son and ordering regular visitation for the son's paternal grandmother, contending that the visitation order impermissibly infringed on her fundamental parenting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mother also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition requesting that the court terminate or modify the order for the son to visit the paternal grandmother. The court concluded that the juvenile court did not violate Mother's fundamental parenting rights by issuing an order granting the paternal grandmother visitation where the juvenile court was authorized by statute to issue a visitation order, the visitation order did not infringe on Mother's fundamental right to parent; and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's petition seeking modification of the visitation order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re J.T." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things, fraud and unfair business practices in the origination of plaintiffs' residential mortgage loans, and negligence in the subsequent servicing of the loans. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the complaint failed to allege fraud for which defendants are responsible and in concluding that defendants owed no duty of care to plaintiffs in the review of their applications for a loan modification. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action for fraud against defendants where the complaint alleged that the loan documents concealed the terms of plaintiffs' loans and plaintiffs have alleged facts establishing defendants' liability for the alleged fraud. Accordingly, the court reversed as to plaintiffs' first, second, and sixth causes of action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

Defendant-Employer Tilly’s Inc. (and World of Jeans & Tops, Inc.) hired plaintiff-respondent Maria Rebolledo to work in its warehouse from July 6, 2000, to December 28, 2001. She was rehired on January 28, 2002, and terminated October 30, 2012. In December 2012 she filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and a putative class of "similarly situated" persons (amended February 2013) alleging her Employer: (1) failed to provide meal periods; (2) failed to provide rest periods; (3) failed to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; (4) knew and intentionally failed to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and (5) violated the unfair competition law. Furthermore, plaintiff sought enforcement of Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Upon review of the matter, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's conclusion the parties' arbitration agreement expressly excluded statutory wage claims from the arbitration obligation. Therefore, the order was affirmed.View "Rebolledo v. Tilly's, Inc." on Justia Law